Comments about ‘LDS Church, other faiths say same-sex marriage opposition not due to bigotry’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Feb. 10 2014 8:00 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

It's absolutely bigotry. Plain and simple.

Svoboda_Religii
West valley City, UT

I am sure that gays will have the right to marry in every state before long.

I don't hate anybody, but if I disagree with the gay community, they hurl all sorts of insulting labels at me. What will happen next?

Suppose every state gives the gays this right. Is that enough? Or will they insist that everyone who continues to feel that it is wrong is punished in some fashion?

This is what I feel will happen. I fear that many gays will want to decide what's for dinner, and force those who don't like the food to eat it anyway or face consequences.

Fun days ahead!

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@juangone
"One way that gay rights has gained huge support is to claim it is about equality. That is not accurate. This is about additional rights. It has no merit when claiming it's about inequality. I, as a single man, have the exact same rights as any gay man. I can only marry a woman. He can only marry a woman. I can't marry a man. He can't marry a man. "

Was getting rid of interracial marriage bans a movement for "additional rights" rather than "equal rights"?

@procuradorfiscal
"a democratically-recognized interest in fostering what is best for its citizens. "

And yet single people (even single gay people) can adopt. Infertile couples can marry and marriage has no requirement to have children. Statistical averages aren't used to limit any other kind of marriage (after all, it's a well-established fact that children in poor families have lower test scores and higher crime rates, should we ban poor people from marrying because of averages too?). You're just not consistent. The arguments against same-sex marriage are not consistently applied when it comes to marriage and family law in Utah, so they seem more like excuses.

Utahdane
Bountiful, UT

I am tired of judges reading things into the constitution that are not there. The 14th amendment was simply to ensure that every individual had basic rights guaranteed by the federal constitution. If the the 14th amendment was really a total equality amendment there would have been no need to have an amendment giving women the right to vote. Abortion, pornography, gambling, drug laws, marriage are not part of the federal constitution. By the way if you want to talk about equality where is my equality as a straight white singe mormon male. I have none. I have to keep my mouth shut at work and other places because you see I do not have 14th amendment rights.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@evansrichdm
You live in a society, you're going to deal with things you don't like. I live in Utah, and i'm an atheist. So I know how you feel. But you're talking about two separate issues. One is a legal context, the SCOTUS needs to decide if gay marriage bans violate the 10th amendment. The other is a social context, and frankly, you can't stop that. Let me give you an example, I'm an atheist, and a lifelong Utahn. So that means most of the state totally disagree's with me in terms of religion. But I don't get to MAKE them agree with me. I don't get to MAKE them pass laws that I agree with as an atheist. I don't get to change the cultural makeup of the state, even if I disagree with it. The fact is young people don't care if someone is gay, and they don't care if they get married. Culture is shifting, and you will have to learn to deal with not holding the majority opinion on this issue.

Ranch
Here, UT

@evansrichdm;

Is it going to kill you to accept that other people marry the person they love? I don't care what your scriptures say. This is America. We are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. We also have religious freedom and are not beholden to your version of religion. Nobody is telling you to have a gay marriage. You aren't being hurt if someone else has one.

@grounded and rooted;

"Legitimate concerns"? How, exactly is SSM going to affect you personally. (not at all).

@jonjonhill;

You believe it? You abide by it; stop trying to force others to abide by it.

@bleeding purple;

Denying others what you enjoy is bigotry. Not simply the beliefs.

@RedShirt;

The 10th amendment REQUIRES states to adhere to the rest of the Constitution (look up 'prohibited').

@CB;

Our marriages are not "bad behavior".

@Tators;

Civil Unions aren't allowed in Utah either.

davs
KANAB, UT

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I have thought about this issue and I feel that if I am going to rely on the scriptures as the word of God, then I, as a believer in God, must try to keep his commandments. The Proclamation to the Family states, "The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." I believe this to be revelation from God to his prophet. I have nothing against and do not judge those who choose a same sex relationship. They are free to choose their own path. If they can get a law changed so they can legally marry, it is their choice. I only ask that my beliefs and opposition to same sex marriage be treated with respect also.

Ariz
Madison, AL

@PunkJones "The references to the 14th Amendment are convoluted because the Amendment itself identifies restrictions to sex, age, salvery "

You might want to re-read the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There's nothing in it about previous status of servitude, gender, age, religion, skin color, hair color, favorite flavor of soda, etc.

spaghetti
Boise, ID

I don't understand why people compare homosexuality to race. Homosexuality is a feeling and an act. Race just is.

I know some homosexuals feel they were born this way. All human beings, regardless, should be accepted and loved. But being accepted and loved does NOT mean that any feeling one has is right, should be acted upon and accepted. As a parent I know loving my children doesn't mean it's okay for them to O.D. on candy or video games even though they want to and like to. We set limits on behavior because we love.

loaf
Boise, ID

continued...

Everyone deals with urges that aren't good that will cause harm to self and others if acted upon. That's why we have laws- to protect.

Denying people civil rights, like the Jim Crow laws, were horribly unjust. Having a certain skin color is not an action and it doesn't hurt anyone.

I think many have problems with homosexuality because having sex with the same gender is harmful to the individual and to those around them. It encourages the lie that it doesn't matter what we do, that anything goes and who cares what the eventual ramifications are for individuals or society.

LDSareChristians
Anchorage, AK

Kalindra posted:
That would be fine if they actually wanted to focus on children - but they don't. They deny marriage to same-sex couples with children while granting it to heterosexual couples without children. Obviously, marriage is about more than children.
============
We ARE focused on the children, a SS environment is not the best for children. Hence the discouragement of such by denying marriage.

The fact that some heterosexual couples are unable or choose not to have kids is irrelevant to the debate. If children arrive, the environment is statistically most correct.

To Hemlock at 9:48p 10Feb2014 I agree 100%.

To panamadesnews at 10:08pm 10Feb2014 Right on!

Clifton Palmer McLendon
Gilmer, TX

The US Constitution does not give any branch of the Federal government any power to define or legislate marriage -- so anything any Federal employee says or does on the subject is unconstitutional.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Provide a rational, nonsophist explanation of how the legislature's overwhelming passage of SB89 in 1996 conforms to the "child-centric" model of marriage . . . ."

You're changing the subject. Typically, that happens when one runs out of persuasive arguments on the real issue. But, let's humor the question -- the correct answer is: who cares?

The ONLY issue presently before the courts is whether or not Amendment 3 is rationally related to the state's democratically-defined interests, including -- but certainly not limited to -- optimizing the child-rearing environment.

And, it clearly is.

Whether aged cousins should be allowed to marry is a whole other issue. Interesting, perhaps, from an academic standpoint, but entirely unrelated to the issue before the courts -- whether or not the state's valid, recognized interest in promoting an optimal child-rearing environment is rationally related to Amendment 3.

Whether it's rationally related to SB89 [1996] is a matter of surpassing indifference to today's legal argument. And, conflating unrelated arguments, for or against unrelated issues is typically referred to as a "red herring."

The question clearly qualifies.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

Why can't people get along without pushing their beliefs on others? The majority of Utah's citizens do not want the minority gay community forcing their beliefs on them!. Why must the gay community intrude on the rights of others who wish to live differently than they do? We need to live and let live and not try to force peaceful citizens to accept amoral and objectionable beliefs.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Ranch" you are wrong. The problem is contradiction within the interpretation. Read the Cornell University Law school article on the equal protection clause. In their article they state that "The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights."

Now before you start crying civil rights, lets look at the ramifications. Look at sex offenders, they are being denied their right to live next to schools and parks. Polygamists are being denied their right to marry as many people as they love and care about. What about addicts that are denied rights, or ex-cons that are also denied rights. What about women using the men's bathroom. What right is being protected by denying them access? What about a teacher and an 18 year old student, why can't they have sexual relationships just like everybody else?

Do you really want to flood us with new rights?

Inis Magrath
Fort Kent Mills, ME

@procuradorfiscal: You wrote, "The ONLY issue presently before the courts is whether or not Amendment 3 is rationally related to the state's democratically-defined interests..."

False. The rational basis standard of review is not applicable. Rather, the more stringent heightened scrutiny standard applies. This was the standard of review that the 9th circuit court of appeals stated was to be used in reviewing laws that target gay people, in a case decided in late January. The 9th circuit panel said that the decision in United States v. Windsor requires a heightened scrutiny standard.

This recent development is exactly the reason the Nevada AG and Governor said their legal arguments were no longer tenable under the law.

jimhale
Eugene, OR

Same sex cohabitation is not marriage - any more than opposite sex cohabitation is marriage.
Anyone can get married. No one is denied that opportunity. They can marry anytime they find some one of the opposite sex that is willing to marry.
Please do not respond that same sex attraction is involuntary because that concept is (1) not proven and (2) not germane.
It is asserted by many that they can't help being attracted to the same sex and/or that they have always been attracted to the opposite sex. Neither belief has been proven. Some parents and others accept these assertions far too easily. No genetic link has been proven.
Even if it were proven, such attraction is not germane to legislatively derived law - including the Utah amendment enacted by the voters on their own behalf. Taking action on homosexual attraction is a choice. Abstaining from such action is also a choice.
That choice is not significantly different than any other sexual choice that society has chosen to legally sanction. We do not accept "I can't help it" as a legal excuse for those choices.
The State of Utah need not accept it in this instance.

OneWifeOnly
San Diego, CA

Most European countries and Mexico also have a civil ceremony requirement. A marriage in Mexico is legal only if it is a civil ceremony. The religious ceremony occurs later. The purpose behind a civil ceremony is to provide state (government) recognition of the union. I wish our country would move to this system so that regardless of sexual orientation every union would result in equal secular, civil benefits. Then each religion would be free to impose upon their congregation whatever restrictions they wanted for purposes of solemnizing the marriage in the eyes of god.

To put this in perspective for Deseret readers, imagine if marriage that took place outside the Mormon temple was invalid on a civil level but valid on a religious level. Would you feel your marriage equal to the marriage of your catholic neighbor even though your catholic neighbor gets additional tax deductions, insurance benefits from their employer, the ability to pass their estate tax free to their spouse upon death, and a whole host of other benefits that you would be denied?

That is why this argument is about equality rather than the procreative abilities and parenting skills of the partners in the union.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

Actually Judge Shelby did not base his decision on "animus." He said the rights of the individual under the 14th amendment trumped the interests of the State of Utah.

By the way, Nevada gave up its attempt to defend their law a earlier today because the 9th circuit declared that Gays are a "suspect class." I suspect you will see something similar in the 10th circuit.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Meckofahess,

"....The majority of Utah's citizens do not want the minority gay community forcing their beliefs on them!. Why must the gay community intrude on the rights of others who wish to live differently than they do?...."
______________________________

At least the majority is finally finding out what it feels like to be on the other end.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments